Mexico weekly ledger., 1887-03-03

wrong. My reputation is worth
as much to me as any mans,
and it has been assailed in this way and
l have no other mean of seeking a
vindication or making known the facts,
and 1 hope you will report fully and let
the public know whether / have done
anything wrong or not.
Cook has been publishing a good deal
in his paper, but l don't know whether
he has published anything for the ex-
press purpose of injuring me or not.
He is here and l hope you will call
on him to tell what he knows.
~RoBERTsoN's sTATEMENT-CAsE OF THE
STATE VS.. MoBERLY.
l will say, in connection with the
case of the State VS.. Moberly, that ev-
erybody know that Moberly had moth
ing on earth, a wife and two children
to support and that, ON investigation, l
found out that the prosecuting witness
who had procured the indictment did
not care about prosecuting him for the
reason that Mobery was drunk at the
time he was arrested and had the pis-
toll upon his person.
Mr.. A. G. Turner and Mr.. R. L.
Campbell raised the money to pay the
cost and they said and be said he would
have to go to Jail and likely then, his
family to the poor house or their
friends would have to keep them while
he was in Jail, and they proposed to
me, that a judgment of that kind be en-
tered and held over him to keep him
sober if it could be done.
l consented to this provided the court
would make the order. The court did
make it and l believe it vas best fol
ell, the state, the defendant and his
family.
On investigation, l have since found
that he has not been drunk since then
This information l have obtained from
Mr.. Campbell, his neighbor. That dol
lar that was left after paying the cost
I paid into the county treasurer. l be
lieve it vas a dollar and a quarter
paid into the treasury.
STATE vs.. G
In the cases of the state VS.. Logan
when l went into office | found two in
dictments against him for selling liquoi
as a druggist. He came up at the JUNE
term and offered to plead guilty to sell.
ing liquor without license and pay tn,
costs of the other case. l accepted
this offer after looking intosthe cases
My reasons for doing so were, first
that he could plead guilty to selling liz
uor without license under the indict
ment against him; second, / knew o
my own knowledge, having been attor
ney for the town of Laddonia, that tn,
defendant had been already fined be
fore the town court for one of the of
lenses charged. AS to the Indictment
returned at the October term 1886, i
will be observed by reference to tn,
back of each indictment that four diff
ferent witnesses were depended on t,
secure convictions, and my recollection
is that only two of them were ever be
fore the grand jury. At the time th,
indictments were returned ! expressed
a doubt as to being able to make then
all stick, and on investigation | Learned
that some fthe sales charged in the in
dictments Vas where the witness hac
procured the whiskey under pretenc,
of being sick and for the purpose of af
terward appearing before the grant
jury, and IS to another witness VIII
had gotten whiskey to drink, l fount
upon inquiry that he was a very unre
Liable man and that it would be diff
cult to get his presence in court at an,
trial. afterward spoke to the fore
man of the grand jury that returned
the indictments and told him wha'
disposition / was about to make O
the cases and he said he thought it wal
about as well as l could do. l think il
extremely doubtful if could have con
victed on more cases than the defend.
ant pleaded guilty upon. Every person
knows that has had any experience tina
it is a difficult matter to always sustain
every indictment returned by granC
j%uries, especially in whiskey cases.
believed then and l am still of tn,
opinion that l settled these cases fol
the best interests of the state. The de
PENDANT pleaded guilty on two and paic
the costs in all of the casas.
sTATE VS.. HALL.
AS to the cases against Hall, referred
to by the grand jury, that is, as to thu
eleven indictments returned at the DC
tober 1885, l had nothing to do with
them. Buckner, as will be seer by ref
erence to the records, dismissed sever
of them at the cost of the state at tn,
January term, 1886, and before / wen
into office. The grand jury in its re
port however, does not seem to hay,
mentioned that fact or even noticed it
suppose their attention was not call
ed to it. The only cases against Hal
that | had any connection with at al
were six cases against him returned a
the January term, 1886, and which
found on the docket when / vent int,
office. / will state in connection Will
the disposition of these six cases, tina
as | understand the law and as the Sill
preme court has decided that tn,
charge of selling LIQUOR as a druagjs